ISS Lectureshttp://repub.eur.nl/col/9765/
List of Publicationsenhttp://repub.eur.nl/eur_signature.pnghttp://repub.eur.nl/
RePub, Erasmus University RepositoryGovernance and the Rhetoric of International Developmenthttp://repub.eur.nl/pub/19902/
Thu, 27 May 2010 00:00:01 GMT<div>W. Hout</div>
Cooperation for knowledge demands know-how for cooperationhttp://repub.eur.nl/pub/19311/
Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:00:01 GMT<div>L. de la Rive Box</div>
Valedictory Address by
Louk de la Rive Box,
Professor of international cooperation and
Rector of the
International Institute of Social Studies
(22 April 2010).
Which Knowledge and for Which Development? Old Timers and New Players
More than a decade ago the cyber-revolution gave rise to optimism that ICT would facilitate access to knowledge and promote “development”. The World Development Report 1998-99 promised “Knowledge for Development”, while the World Bank proclaimed itself the “Knowledge Bank”. There had been many “old” players in the knowledge field, including public research organizations for different sectors. During the 1980s and 1990s, however, private players had come to dominate the “knowledge market”, as dwindling public finances and government subsidies undermined public research and development, and related public goods such as education.
While many of these “new” players effectively privatized knowledge, some contributed to knowledge becoming more widely available, in forms such as open-access journals and e-books, in a process referred to as “democratizing knowledge”. The question is whether this really translated into wider access to knowledge. In particular, did knowledge became accessible for the less privileged in the world, those seeking “development”, or has knowledge become a private good, with segmented access to information, for a particular form of (elite-driven) development? How can we explain, for instance, the lack of knowledge development for peasant agriculture, and the overall focus on development of technology for (and by) agri-business, with highly protected forms of access?
Although civil society is contesting this way of restricting knowledge, it is not clear whether and how the current trend towards concentration in the “power of knowledge” can be reversed in the interest of broad-based access.
Let the debate continue…